One one hand, maybe Donald Trump has very good timing. He's likely to suffer some pretty
big defeats this week—Obamacare repeal, the Alabama election (see below), etc. And he's also going to be
introducing some controversial new initiatives—Muslim Travel Ban v3.0 (see below),
a Dooh Nibor
tax plan that robs from the poor to give to the rich. But what everyone is going to be talking about,
at least for the next couple of days, is the NFL.

On the other hand, maybe Trump's timing isn't so good. He chose to take on America's most
popular sports league, right in the midst of its season, and right as it was gearing up for
the week's games. And, even more precisely, he chose one of the four weeks in which the NFL is playing
a game in London. And so, the protests started early (9:30 a.m. EDT) and continued throughout the day
(the last game kicked off at 8:30 p.m. EDT).

At that first game, which featured the Jacksonville Jaguars and Baltimore
Ravens, both teams
got in on the act.
More than a dozen current Ravens kneeled;
they were joined by a few former players, notably former linebacker Ray Lewis.
On the other sideline, the Jaguars linked arms during the national anthem, with
team owner Shad Khan and several other non-athlete personnel joining them. The
arm-linking was for those who wished to send a message of unity in opposition to
Trump's attacks, without necessarily embracing the political message of the
kneelers. Meanwhile, because the game was in England, the U.S. national anthem
was followed by "God Save the Queen." Every player made a point of standing at
attention, hand over heart, for that one—just in case anyone missed that
they were trying to make a point with their actions during the U.S. anthem.

Needless to say, this did not please the President, and he was on Twitter
very early to rant and rave about the situation:

If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!

That was not the end of it, though, as the protests
continued
throughout the day. By one count, over 200 players kneeled during the 14 games
played on Sunday, about the same number sat. A considerably larger number linked
arms; those demonstrations also frequently included owners, coaches and other
support personnel. Three teams (the Seattle Seahawks, Pittsburgh Steelers, and
Tennessee Titans), along with a few scattered players from the other 12 games,
chose to forego the national anthem altogether and to remain in their locker
rooms until kickoff. CNN has a nice collection of
photos
that document the story.

Once their games were over, the players weren't shy about
sharing
their feelings about the President, either. "A lot of guys felt all over the
place by the comments by the president Friday night. As a leader on this team a
lot of guys came to me. They didn't know what to do. They were just kind of
angry," said safety Devin McCourty of the Patriots. "Non-violent protest is as
American as it gets. We knelt with them today and let them know we are a unified
front. There is no dividing us. I guess we're all sons of b------," declared
linebacker Terrell Suggs of the Ravens. "You're the leader of the free world,
that's what you're talking about? As a man, as a father, as an African-American
man, as somebody in the NFL who's one of those sons of b------, you know, yeah, I
took it personally," explained safety Michael Thomas of the Dolphins. "I
disagree with what the President said and how he said it. I think it's very
unbecoming of the office of the President of the United States to talk like
that, to degrade people like that," opined quarterback Drew Brees of the
Saints. It's pretty clear that, like Hillary Clinton's "deplorables," Donald
Trump's "sons of bitches" was a pretty poor word choice.

Now, Trump presumably doesn't much care what a bunch of wealthy, mostly black,
athletes think. However, there were some responses on Sunday that surely must
have given him pause. Tom Brady, whom Trump counts as a personal friend, surprised
everyone by linking arms with his Patriots teammates. Former coach Rex Ryan,
now a television analyst,
launched
into an extended rant against The Donald on ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown":

I'm pissed off. I'll be honest with you. Because I supported Donald Trump. When
he asked me to introduce him at a rally in Buffalo, I did that. But I'm reading
these comments and it's appalling to me and I'm sure it's appalling to almost
any citizen in our country. It should be. You know, calling our players SOBs and
all that kind of stuff, that's not the men that I know. The men that I know in
the locker room I'm proud of. I'm proud to be associated with those people. I
apologize for being pissed off but guess what? That's it, because right away
I'm associated with what Donald Trump stands for and all that because I
introduced him. I never signed up for that, I never wanted that.

Even more worrisome for the President was the response of Patriots owner
Robert Kraft, who donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration. Kraft put out a
statement late Sunday morning:

I am deeply disappointed by the tone of the comments made by the President on
Friday. I am proud to be associated with so many players who make such
tremendous contributions in positively impacting our communities. Their efforts,
both on and off the field, help bring people together and make our community
stronger. There is no greater unifier in this country than sports, and
unfortunately, nothing more divisive than politics. I think our political
leaders could learn a lot from the lessons of teamwork and the importance of
working together toward a common goal. Our players are intelligent, thoughtful
and care deeply about our community and I support their right to peacefully
affect social change and raise awareness in a manner that they feel is most
impactful.

This was issued in Kraft's name, not the name of the team, which is quite
unusual for releases of this sort, and suggests that the owner wanted to
communicate a particularly clear message to Trump.

Eventually, Trump appeared to sense that he'd bitten off a bit more than he
could chew, and he started to go into damage control mode. He
insisted
to reporters that this whole issue has, "nothing to do with race," a statement
that is either very dishonest, very naive, very dumb, or some combination of the
above. He also issued forth with this tweet:

Great solidarity for our National Anthem and for our Country. Standing with locked arms is good, kneeling is not acceptable. Bad ratings!

Of course, it is remarkably arrogant for anybody, even the President of
the United States, to presume to pass judgment on what is and what is not an
acceptable form of demonstration. But this is also Jedi-master-level spin,
something we might expect to see from a 30-year political veteran like Harry
Reid or John Boehner, not from a relative novice like Trump. What the president
is doing, of course, is decreeing that a gesture clearly meant to send a message
in opposition to him is in fact a demonstration of patriotism, and thus
implicitly a show of support for him. If the base buys it, and presumably
they will, then Operation Damage Control was successful.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. Will Trump drop it, or will
he spend the next three days blasting the kneelers on Twitter? Will the players
continue to demonstrate en masse, or is this a one-week phenomenon? The best
guess here is that this fight has legs, and will linger throughout the NFL
season. It's also worth noting that the business of football players being
expected
to take the field for the national anthem dates back only to 2009, and was
likely part of a larger initiative by the Bush era Dept. of Defense to use
sporting events to promote patriotism in the face of two ongoing wars (a
campaign for which the sports leagues were paid handsomely by the DoD). In
baseball, the playing of the national anthem goes back
further,
but that tradition also began as part of an effort to promote American war
efforts (in this case, World Wars I and II). So, anyone who says that these
pre-game patriotic displays were non-political until that uppity Colin
Kaepernick and his friends made them so is not in possession of all the facts.
(Z)

Muslim Travel Ban v2.0 largely expired Sunday, and so—as expected—the Trump administration
promulgated
Travel Ban v3.0 late in the afternoon. It applies to eight different countries:
Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. In an
effort to avoid the errors made in the first two travel bans, Travel Ban v3.0
does things a little differently:

The ban will not be implemented immediately, to give federal departments
time to adjust and to ask questions. The "effective date" will be Oct. 18.

Travelers from the different countries will be subject to different sets of
standards. For example, North Koreans will essentially have no way to enter the
United States. For Iranians, it will only be students, and only then with "extra
vetting." Venezuelans probably have the easiest path in, on the whole, though if
the new ban is fully implemented, travel from all eight countries will be
reduced to a trickle.

Fully two of the eight countries (25%!) are not majority-Muslim, so the ban
couldn't possibly be targeted at Muslims, could it?

Anyone with an existing visa or green card will not be subject to the new
ban.

The first questions that might be asked are: Why these eight? And a different
list from the original one, with Iraq and Sudan dropping off, and Chad,
Venezuela, and North Korea joining? There are a few obvious answers to
these questions. North Korea and Venezuela are easy—they are there because
Trump really hates them, and their presence makes it possible to argue that it's
not just Muslim countries that are being targeted. Trump really hates Iran and
Syria as well, and both countries actually are hostile to the U.S., so that's
why they are on. Meanwhile, Iraq was dropped because they are something of an
ally, and their inclusion in the first two bans was protested loudly on both
sides of the Atlantic.

The removal of Sudan, by contrast, is rather a mystery. A major justification
for the new travel ban is that it's being targeted at countries that do not do a
good job of vetting people who depart for trips abroad. With that argument in
mind, the inclusion of Chad, Somalia, and Yemen makes some amount of sense,
since they have three of the most
ineffective governments
in the world. But so does Sudan, so why do they skate this time, when other
countries at the top (or bottom?) of the list do not? To put a finer point on
it, why are visitors from "most fragile" governments #2 (Somalia), #4 (Yemen), #6
(Syria), and #8 (Chad) banned, but those from #1 (South Sudan), #3 (Central
African Republic), #5 (Sudan), and #7 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) are not? It's
true that there's nasty stuff going on in Somalia (piracy, civil war), Yemen and
Syria (civil wars), and Chad (Boko Haram), but if that's the standard, then why
not Niger and Cameroon (also Boko Haram), or Nigeria (Boko Haram and civil war),
or Afghanistan (Al-Qaeda and civil war), or Central African Republic (civil
war)? Of course, if the real goal is to stop terrorists, then why isn't
Saudi Arabia—home of the great majority of the 9/11 attackers—on the list?

The Trump administration is going to need to come up with
answers to these questions, because the lawsuits are already being prepared.
Even if the new ban is somewhat more reasonable than the first two, it doesn't
mean that it actually will do what it's supposed to, namely make Americans safer.
After all, the number of people (much less terrorists) who have traveled from Chad
or Yemen to the U.S. in the last year could be counted on the fingers of Trump's
cabinet. Further, while the inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela kind of
makes this the semi-Muslim Travel Ban v3.0, the courts are going to know about the
first two, and are going to use that information as a clue to the purposes of this one.
So, The Donald is still a long way from the win he wants so badly. (Z)

The most recent attempt by the Senate Republicans to repeal the ACA, the Cassidy-Graham-Heller-Johnson (CGHJ) bill,
was already pretty much dead, but now it is even more dead. The GOP can afford only two defections and Sens.
John McCain (AZ) and Rand Paul (KY) are officially against it. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) didn't support the repeal
efforts back when Barack Obama was president and she knew there was no chance that they would become law. Although she is
not officially a "no," it is almost inconceivable that she would vote "yes" when it could pass and be signed by the president.
Nevertheless, the bill's chances got even worse yesterday when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
said
the bill didn't have his
vote, and probably not that of Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), either. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AZ) is being offered boatloads of
goodies for Alaska, but she is probably a "no" vote regardless.

The only chance the bill has at this point is for it to be rewritten very fast, as the deadline is Sept. 30.
Oops. Yesterday a
new version
was released.
However, the new version is the same as the old version except that it funnels more money into Maine and Arizona, home to
states of some key recalcitrant senators, probably to no avail.
It is very unlikely to corral McCain (who objects to the process), Paul and Cruz
(who think it is not conservative enough), and Collins and Murkowski (who think it is too punitive). Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said last week that he would hold a vote before Sept. 30, but if it is clear that the bill will
fail, he probably will cancel the vote. At this point it is do or die for the bill. (V)

Well, technically neither Steve Bannon nor Donald Trump is on the Alabama Republican primary runoff ballot
tomorrow, but they might as well be. Bannon has gone all out to support former Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore
while Donald Trump (as well as the rest of the Republican establishment) is pouring money and effort into the
election of Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL). A
new poll
just out from Optimus has Moore at 55.4% and Strange at 44.6%. The poll was taken Friday and Saturday, mostly
after Trump went to Alabama to campaign for Strange. What is especially alarming for the Trump and
Mitch McConnell is that 86% of Republican primary voters know that Trump strongly supports Strange—but
support Moore anyway.

A Moore victory, especially a double-digit one, will have profound implications going down the road, including these:

Republican senators and representatives will know that Trump is a paper tiger and won't fear his wrath

Moore won't take orders from McConnell, making getting laws passed much harder

The Democrat, a blue-collar white man, Doug Jones, has a small chance to beat Moore in the December general election

In short, we have the ironic situation of the Democrats quietly hoping for an extreme right-wing candidate
to win in a very red state. What Nancy Pelosi ought to do today is come out with a big endorsement of Strange,
saying he is the kind of person she and Chuck Schumer can work with. That would seal Moore's victory. (V)

One way Democrats are fighting the Trump administration is to have Democratic attorneys general sue the federal
government. So far, these suits have targeted the border wall, the travel bans, the rollback of environmental regulations, and Donald
Trump's business dealings. For the Democrats, this is one of the few ways they can try to block Trump, so they are going
to
spend
up to $15 million to elect more Democratic attorneys general. Top targets in 2018 are Ohio, Wisconsin, and Nevada.
If a Democratic wave starts to build next year, they will also go after tougher states.

In addition to the money, the Democratic Attorneys General Association is looking around the country for strong candidates
in states like Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Florida. It is also schooling new candidates in how to run, including
aspects like dealing with the media and polling. One of the group's goals is to have 50% of the attorneys general in 2022
be women. (V)

The biggest line of attack Republicans leveled on Hillary Clinton during the campaign was her use of a private email
server for official business. She isn't the only one, it would seem.
As we pointed out
last week,
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who is vice chairman of Donald Trump's election-fraud commission, has used Gmail
for commission work. Now Politico is
reporting
that First son-in-law Jared Kushner is also using a private email server for official business. From Kushner's point of view,
the advantage of using a private email server is that nosy reporters cannot get copies of his email using the Freedom of Information Act.

It is not known why Kushner set up a private account or with whom he might be communicating, but his penchant for
secrecy is well known. In Dec. he asked the Russian ambassador to set up a secure hotline to Moscow.
He could have asked the CIA for a hotline, of course, but then the CIA would have had access to his emails, but apparently
he had things to say to the Russians that he did not want the CIA to know about. Whether his use of a private account is
intended to lock out not only nosy reporters, but also the CIA, is not known. Whatever Kushner's up to, it will be rather harder
for Trump to go after "Crooked Hillary's" e-mail server any more. (V)

Neither of the major political parties is popular, but the Republicans have hit an
all-time low,
with only 29% of Americans saying they approve of the party, while 62% have an unfavorable view of it. An astounding 1% have
never even heard of it. For the Democrats, 41% hold favorable views and 51% hold unfavorable views. With the Republicans at -33
and the Democrats at -10, that is a 23-point advantage for the Democrats.

Not surprisingly, the congressional leaders aren't wildly popular, either. Here are the results:

Politician

Favorable

Unfavorable

Net approval

Never heard of

No opinion

Chuck Schumer (D)

28%

35%

-7%

22%

14%

Paul Ryan (R)

32%

51%

-19%

8%

8%

Nancy Pelosi (D)

29%

50%

-21%

11%

9%

Mitch McConnell (R)

20%

49%

-29%

17%

13%

What strikes us as more amazing than the horrible numbers for all of them, is that 17% have never even heard of McConnell.
Only political junkies know that his real name isn't Mitch or Mitchell, but Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr.. Nevertheless, he has been the
Republican leader in the Senate for over a decade and is in the news constantly.
Apparently, a lot of people simply don't pay any attention to the news at all. (V)

Germans went to the polls on Sunday, and
awarded
Chancellor Angela Merkel a fourth term (once she puts together a governing
coalition). If she finishes it out, she'll tie Helmut Kohl for the honor of
being longest-serving leader of that nation since World War II.

That said, not everything was sunshine and rainbows for the Chancellor on
Sunday. To start, her party CDU/CSU lost close to 100 seats in the Bundestag. So
too did the center-left SPD, which had been part of Merkel's governing
coalition, but will be no longer. This is effectively going to compel
Merkel to join with the libertarian FDP and left-wing Greens in what people are
calling the "Jamaica coalition," because the colors of the three parties are
black, yellow, and green, like the Jamaican flag.

For Americans, what are the takeaways here? Well, there are probably two.
Merkel is no fan of Donald Trump. The other two members of the Jamaica
coalition are also outspokenly anti-Trump, so the odds are pretty high that the
already chilly relationship between the U.S. and Germany gets worse. The other
takeaway involves the far-right, anti-immigrant AfD party, which picked up 88
seats on Sunday after winning zero in 2013. Clearly, there is a populist,
xenophobic revolt afoot in the West, with some countries embracing it (the U.S.
and Trump, Britain and the Brexit), others going partway (Germany), and still
others turning away from it (The Netherlands and Geert Wilders, France and
Marine Le Pen). This is going to be a big story, maybe the big story, in
international politics for at least the rest of the decade. (Z)